Democrats Questioning Clinton's Electablity, Is She a Drag?Are we surprised? No. But now what was being discussed "privately" is now being discussed "openly". That is, does she have "coattails"? Many think she does not and will be a drag on the other congressional, senate races. Especially in tough districts and swing states. This has many insider, state officials and activists, democrats, uneasy. Simply, many do not like her negatives, which they feel is a huge problem. Even Karl Rove jumped in on this one. I never cared for his type of divisive politics, but you can not side step the man as an analyst, genious even, when it comes to political strategy. Remember, he got Bush in there not once, but twice. He made a statement, whether you like the man or not, that is true: "She enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup poll," he said. "It just says people have made an opinion about her. It's hard to change opinions once you've been a high-profile person in the public eye, as she has for 16 or 17 years."

Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.

They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.

"I'm not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag" on many candidates, said Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Washington, Ind.

"The argument with Hillary right now in some of these red states is she's so damn unpopular," said Andy Arnold, chairman of the Greenville, S.C., Democratic Party. "I think Hillary is someone who could drive folks on the other side out to vote who otherwise wouldn't."

"Republicans are upset with their candidates," Arnold added, "but she will make up for that by essentially scaring folks to the polls."

Democrats Say Leaving Iraq May Take YearsI don't like this, one iota. Here we have, what, three candidates that voted for this war running for president and we are suppose to think this is alright? In fact, they are part of the reason we are in the "quagmire" or "messed up situation", that we are in now. But they want us to trust their judgement. No, this makes me even MORE SKEPTICAL, of them all.

Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, would keep troops in the region to intervene in an Iraqi genocide and be prepared for military action if violence spills into other countries. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York would leave residual forces to fight terrorism and to stabilize the Kurdish region in the north. And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois would leave a military presence of as-yet unspecified size in Iraq to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis.

These positions and those of some rivals suggest that the Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict — however much it appeals to primary voters — oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico stands apart, having suggested that he would even leave some military equipment behind to expedite the troop withdrawal. In a forum at a gathering of bloggers last week, he declared: “I have a one-point plan to get out of Iraq: Get out! Get out!”more

Camp Obama in MissouriOne unique thing about the Barack Obama Campaign is their training for GOTV in this campaign. His Camp Obama, has been staffed and full since the conception in Chicago, and now he is going nationwide. But the thing about this is that these supporters are committed. Many a first campaign. For me. The more the merrier, because we need the young to move the party. This is just the beginning.

It's been about 100 degrees here this weekend in muggy St. Louis, so perhaps it's fortunate that the Camp Obama campground was actually a nicely air-conditioned function room in the basement of the Missouri Historical Museum. For the past two days, more than 60 ardent supporters of Barack Obama have huddled here to learn how they can put their passion to use.

It's been more boot camp than summer camp: Yesterday's session was a 12-hour marathon. Participants learned how to canvass. They learned how to raise money by throwing house parties in their neighborhoods. They learned how the Iowa caucus works. They learned how to use the press. They learned how to talk on people's doorsteps about Obama's policy positions.

"You are our base," Patrick Green, a local official who is supporting Obama, told the group. "You are our foot soldiers."

Indeed, a lot is expected from these groups of volunteers, who are being carefully groomed around the country by Obama's campaign. The strength of Obama's grass-roots network has mostly been measured by his many campaign contributors -- nearly 260,000 people through June. But Camp Obama shows that his base of volunteers is big and growing, a force that his campaign hopes will make the difference by the time the primaries begin next year.more

Interesting, I was looking at the list of primary dates for 2008. I am not going to get into IA, NH, NV, SC, that is just all over the place. But the other states on February 5th. Which coincides with what I wrote above about the Obama Campaign and the national training that the Obama Camp is doing. Here are the following states for February 5th:

Obama Campaign has huge grassroot support and going onto the campuses to get many trained for states with caucuses. I have worked on campaigns, and many you have to drag folk to participate in the process, this campaign, is not that kind at all.

Michelle Obama says stop with the is he "Black Enough", and total ditto from me. Why is the question even out there? Is anyone asking Clinton is she "Woman Enough", or Richardson is he "Mexican Enough", and if they are getting the same questions, again WHY? All the African Americans, I know, and I know a plenty, are not even asking about this. Why? Because we can see he is Black and that is enough, NEXT. The questions we are asking is on the issues, where does he stand with the war, healthcare, education (huge issue in the African American communities), crime (another big one). So, if the media is wondering if he is black enough, that is one YOU. We can see, hopefully, you can, too.

...So it was left to our imagination here the other night inside the Ironwood Country Club, with Mr. Buffett standing at the front of the room, when the first question rang out from the crowd of Democrats who were gathering for a fund-raiser for Mr. Obama.

“Why you and not Mrs. Clinton?” a man standing near the side of the room asked.

“Boy,” Mr. Obama replied with a grin, “you really get to the point.”

Mr. Buffett, the wise sage of money and finance, had a far broader smile on his face. He, of course, doesn’t have to answer the question. He has contributed to both candidates, held fund-raisers for both candidates and offered advice to both candidates.

And in the Clinton-Obama contest, he has no intention of taking sides until the race is over. While the billionaire investor knows a growth stock when he sees one, he is also prone to invest in the traditional product. Even more, he knows better than to get entangled in a political brawl. NY Times

From an Obama Supporter, Keep it NiceWell, can you? You just can not sit by and let your opponents, state whatever they wish, nor smear you. I totally, understand this supporter's sentiment, but Obama is correct, because basically, "this ain't gonna be won on tea & crumpets", u dig?

Maggie North of Claremont told Obama he risks becoming part of the usual political scene if he keeps being drawn into well-publicized disputes with rivals. He and chief rival Hillary Rodham Clinton have jabbed at each other over foreign policy, the war on terrorism and the use of nuclear weapons.

"You can be it," North said at a small gathering at a Hanover restaurant Monday morning that drew eight people. "But you've got to stop excuse me for being blunt you've got to stop getting involved in the way people are fighting each other, chewing you up a little more."

"That's what you do when you run for president," Obama responded, getting a laugh.

At the conference of the National Association of Black Journalists in Las Vegas last week, Obama continued to defend his earlier call for unilateral American action in Pakistan but said he opposed using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance," he told the Associated Press.

Clinton responded: "Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons. Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."

It didn't take long for the AP to catch Clinton in a reversal, reporting that she had disavowed the use of nuclear weapons against Iran in April 2006. "I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table," she told Bloomberg Television, referring to reports that the Bush administration might be contemplating such a strike. "This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age," she said. "I think that's a terrible mistake."

Clinton's spokesmen lamely defended her April 2006 statements, insisting that they are not inconsistent because they are not hypotheticals about foreign policy and deterrence but specific responses to a policy option. The campaign was quick to cast Obama as too inexperienced to be commander in chief.

Well, I'll take that inexperience, if that's what you want to call it.more

Obama on Karl Rove:

Karl Rove was an architect of a political strategy that has left the country more divided, the special interests more powerful, and the American people more shut out from their government than any time in memory. But to build a new kind of politics, it will take more than the departure of a man or even an Administration that constructed the old -it will take a movement of everyday Americans committed to changing Washington and reclaiming their government. Link

Check out the new tool from the Obama Web Site. It is the My.Barack Obama Action Center. It is giving you tools as to what to do in organization, every two weeks until the primaries. The first event is a nationwide barbeque, August 25, 2007. All the information is here. The Obama Campaign has been extremely successful in not only having a large donor base, but foot soliders to boot. I will definately be at one of these events. Find one near you, links above. Let's do this!!!!

So what are the current presidential candidates saying about policy, and what does it tell us about them?

Well, none of the leading Republican candidates have said anything substantive about policy. Go through their speeches and campaign materials and you'll see a lot of posturing, especially about how tough they are on terrorists -- but nothing at all about what they actually plan to do.

In fact, I suspect that the real reason most of the Republicans are ducking a YouTube debate is that they're afraid they would be asked questions about policy, rather than being invited to compare themselves to Ronald Reagan.

We know the Republican are not going to do anything about Healthcare. Healthcare Accounts, Anyone?

There is, by contrast, a lot of substance on the Democratic side, with John Edwards forcing the pace. Most notably, in February, Edwards transformed the whole health care debate with a plan that offers a politically and fiscally plausible path to universal health insurance.

Whatever the fate of the Edwards candidacy, Edwards will deserve a lot of the credit if and when we do get universal care in this country.

We must commend John Edwards for being the first and forcing other candidates to put a UHC on the table.

Hillary Clinton, however, has been evasive. She conveys the impression that there's not much difference between her policy positions and those of the other candidates -- but she's offered few specifics. In particular, unlike Edwards or Obama, she hasn't announced a specific universal care plan, or explicitly committed herself to paying for health reform by letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire.

For those who believe that the time for universal care has come, this lack of specifics is disturbing. In fact, what Clinton said about health care in February's Democratic debate suggested a notable lack of urgency: "Well, I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term."

I did not know that Clinton did not have a total plan, so why is she talking in a vacumn? But, why wait until term two before even addressing the healthcare crisis in this country?

On Saturday, at the YearlyKos Convention in Chicago, she sounded more forceful: "Universal health care will be my highest domestic priority as president." But does this represent a real change in position? It's hard to know, since she has said nothing about how she would cover the uninsured.

And even if you believe Clinton's contention that her positions could never be influenced by lobbyists' money -- a remark that drew boos and hisses from the Chicago crowd -- there's reason to worry about the big contributions she receives from the insurance and drug industries. Are they simply betting on the front-runner, or are they also backing the Democratic candidate least likely to hurt their profits? more

This answers everything for me. Clinton made it crystal clear that she is not going to stop taking monies from lobbyists. And it is clear the lobbyists are backing the "horse" who will have the "least affect" in "business as usual". We need change.

How many children does Barack Obama have? In what foreign country did he live as a boy and why did the senator from Illinois decide to run for the Democratic nomination for U.S. president?

The trivia quiz is designed to introduce the first term senator and White House hopeful to American voters in places like Grinnell, tucked away in central Iowa, the state that holds the first contest of the 2008 presidential election.

Some questions were answered easily by Democratic activists crammed into a coffee shop on Friday morning. They yelled out that Obama and his wife Michelle have two daughters and that he lived in Indonesia when he was growing up.

But even some diehard supporters appear stumped by a few questions, like why Obama decided to run for president. more

As we predicted this morning, this Obama statement yesterday regarding Afghanistan -- "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there" -- drew a response from the Republicans. "It is hard to imagine that anyone who aspires to be commander-in-chief would say such a thing about our brave men and women in uniform," RNC chairman Mike Duncan said today in a statement. "Obama owes our armed forces an apology -- today.”

Yes, the Republicans were up in arms of over Obama's statement. Boy, isn't this just "fascinating", the Republican must really love them some "Obama", becuase they just can't quite, keep from not talking about him!! Anyway, proved that the statement/comment was on point and factual from Obama:

THE SPIN:

The suggestion whispered by Obama's opponents was that he was maligning the efforts of troops fighting in Afghanistan by stating they are "just" out there killing civilians.

THE FACT CHECK:

A check of the facts shows that Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents have been killing civilians.

The U.S. and NATO say they don't have civilian casualty figures, but The Associated Press has been keeping count based on figures from Afghan and international officials. Tracking civilian deaths is a difficult task because they often occur in remote and dangerous areas that are difficult to reach and verify.

As of Aug. 1, the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can't be attributed to one party.

Obama Says He Can Unite U.S. 'More Effectively' Than ClintonThis is coming down to two decisively different themes, "throwback times" and "moving, change times". Throwback to the Clinton Dynasty. Which, I will be the first to claim was a good time for me. The technology times were booming, can we say "venture capitalist monies"? But it was hard times, too. We lost the house after holding it since 1954. Bill Clinton governed from the center leaning right, after loosing congress. Welfare Reform came upon us, Don't Ask Don't Tell (can we get rid of that), NAFTA to name a few. And the infamous impeachment theatrics from the Republicans. Bringing and heightening personal behaviour from behind the curtains, to full view on stage, to the American pubic. Totally, distasteful and exhausting, I am confident to write, we all were glad Mr. Clinton was not impeached, and glad that the Clintons were leaving the White House.

Now after the Bush Beating that this country has had, really from September 1, 2001, until now "change" is the word that many want. But how much change? The feeling for many is that we must move forward, many feel that Americans must become more involved in the government, which means that this presidential campaign will be scrutinized by many.

Currently, the national polls show Clinton in the front, which at this state I do believe it is more name recognition. Why? If anyone goes to a state and campaign continously as Clinton, Edwards and Obama is doing in Iowa, of course, the polling numbers are close. And they are. But if you are not out there with ads up, not campaigning, and a pollster call you, the only name you will be familiar with or know, is the one with name recognition. I state this because much of the country are not engaged as us, "political junkies". Yes, they may hear a poll number here or there, but go to your local "bar", bowling lane, family picnic, people are not engaged, yet. Which is why you see the early state polling, drastically different from the national polling, and I am not surprised.

Obama wraps it up, about what the distinct differences are for me: "All the people who were on that stage in Chicago talking about their experience and criticizing me for the lack of it were the same people who went along and displayed incredibly poor judgment in going along with a war that I think has been a disaster."

Judgment vs. Experience, or the "throwback years" vs. "real change". That will be up to us come January.

Obama and Ads

The Obama campaign has produced a second ad targeted to a minority audience stressing his Christianity, on Tuesday releasing a Spanish language radio spot to run in Nevada, one of the early presidential vote states. Why the emphasis on Obama’s Christianity? Is there a worry that in some precincts there is confusion about his faith because of the Islamic heritage of his father and stepfather?

The Nevada Spanish language spot: A narrator says, “Let us tell you Barack Obama is a Christian man committed to our community, his wife and his daughters,” according to the English translation provided by the Obama campaign.

A July ad aimed at African Americans in South Carolina, another early primary state: A narrator says, “It’s Barack Obama time. A Christian family man, community organizer, civil rights lawyer, courageous legislator, and U.S. senator who’s told the truth as a soldier for justice.” more

America can overcome petty politics that are bogging down the nation’s world standing, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said here this morning.

"Part of what ordinary Americans talk to me about every single day is their hope and their desire to overcome the polarization and the pettiness and the trivialization,” Obama told a crowd of about 75 people at Saints Rest Coffee House. He said it's “still possible for us to come together around a sense of common purpose, higher purpose.”

It was the second time Elizabeth Yang, a recent Grinnell University graduate, had attended an Obama event. She’s still considering other Democratic candidates.

“I’m not really sure if I’m going to vote for him but I’m definitely in support of a lot of his policies” such as his stand against the Iraq war and goal to create universal health care, Yang said. Des Moines Register

Below is a video and is a must watch, because this is what we have KNOWN but pundits are just catching up to. Obama is getting better in these debates and the public is/has caught onto Hillary Clinton and her non-answers. Another "key" that came out of this is that the democrats do not like these candidates "ganging up" on Obama, they stated SO. And many were disappointed in Clinton, too cold, scripted, and they have, again, caught onto her "not answering questions".

icebergslim's last word: Obama and Debates or Forums or WhateverOn the blogs was an ongoing tether about the Obama Campaign taking a stand and limiting any forums and debates, henceforth. Noted from David Plouffe, that Obama has participated in seven debates and nineteen forums.

I was not shocked, nor surprised. It is not like these debates are #1 in the Nielsen Ratings, nor that the public is paying attention and watching. Case and point, this debate at Drake University, at 8am-ish today, who made sure they were up watching this one? I was not. If I had not TIVO’d it, I would be watching it on C-Span, later today. My point is this, “are we learning anything new, different?” Not much. Yes, some candidates are better at some debates than other. Yes, all these debates, forums get candidates more honed in on answering questions in this format. But as far as information, there is none. Not when you have eight candidates on the stage, with limited time, at that.So, I cruised the news on the net and found a write up from Time Magazine:

Like all the leading campaigns, Obama's team has felt some frustration at having their schedules tied up by the debates and forums already held. They have had to share the stage in those events with six or seven other candidates, allowing the candidates only a limited period to make an impression. The campaign of Obama's chief rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, has also been frustrated by the time-consuming, low-impact debates, but declined to comment publicly on the announcement. Democratic sources say that there have been long-running informal talks about the course of the debates between the Clinton and Obama camps, sometimes also including representatives of former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the other leading contender for the nomination. But these sources say that no unified position on the invitations emerged, and Obama's campaign decided to move unilaterally.

So, reading this why are the posters on these blogs up in arms? Clinton, we all know, wanted to stick with the mandated DNC Debate schedule from the start, but has been “hoodwinked” per se, to participate in all these other “last minute” forums because her counterparts were. Look for Clinton to follow suit, as well. Why? Look at the calendar. The first caucus is in January, the frontloading on February 5th, these candidates need to campaign in early states, fundraise, and get their ground game and infrastructure ready to compete in these states. To participate in every forum, which 99% won’t be televised for the general public, is just too time consuming. Yes, many special interests will be angered, but this is the 7th inning stretch here, and you need to decide how you are going to swing the bat. So, this is not, nor should be a shocker to anyone.

Lastly, a poster posted on Daily Kos about the viciousness of an “unnamed blog/website” whose posters attack towards Senator Obama was very close to race baiting. And for her, to be an African-American this was an issue. I don’t blame her. As, I, too am African-American, her concern is warranted. It is understandable to get hyper, enthusiastic, euphoric for your candidate (yeah, euphoric), but to attack Senator Obama, close to race baiting, is another. All blogs are not constructed as such, and will not tolerate it one iota, but after reading some of those comments on that “unnamed blog”, the Daily Kos poster issue is warranted. And my suggestion to the poster is to not frequent that site, any longer. If that site owner want to let his/her site be run rampant by such posters, that is that site’s issue. The blogosphere does not have many minority voices and although we are under the wonderful “Big Tent” of the Democratic Party, does not mean that bigots are not running rampant among us as well. And as my husband has always told me, “you can’t win the war, but you can pick you battles, and win those”, and that means leave that site alone, as others will eventually if it continues in that manner.

supporters for sunday, this week debate, @ the "wee hours" of the morning

alright, a very busy week for Obama in Iowa, and a great debate performance from Obama this morning....keep your powder dry, and remember to focus on Obama and not the drama....

Well, I am back with the weekly roundup. I took the week off, due to being at the Yearly Kos Convention in Chicago. I thought I "might" be able to provide last week's roundup, but was tired, drained, and reflective of the events when I got home. So, I posted a diary about my reflections of the convention, instead. All I have to say is, GO NEXT YEAR, start saving your pennies, NOW. Next year is critical, it is the year of the presidential election, but more importantly we must work hard to get more democrats in the congress, in our state houses and state races. Yes, we were fired up this year, but next year the flame is ON!!

August 5, 2007

Thanks, lovingj!!!!

Senator Obama was in Park City, Utah for a fundraiser, but held an impromptu rally of over 500 and expected just a small number, at Utah Olympic Park. Kudos to the Obama Campaign for getting this together on the "fly", and just look at the people grateful to see him.

Obama was next in Elko, Nevada, the senator's first trip to rural Nevada. Attending a townhall type meeting of 900, Obama again, backed up his statements about Pakistan. And the crowd loved it:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Sunday stood by foreign policy comments that sparked an anti-U.S. protest in Pakistan and attacks from his opponents this week.

Obama told a group in Elko, Nevada that he didn't think he'd made a mistake in suggesting that he would use military force in Pakistan if necessary to root out terrorists.

Pakistan has been considered a U.S. ally in the war on terrorism.

Obama also sought to clarify his assertion, prompted by a reporter's question, that nuclear weapons would be "off the table" in such an attack.

The ongoing "flux" with Senator Clinton's answer about lobbyists, their monies, "our friends", "don't influence", me answers from Yearly Kos. And the stepping up of ousting Clinton by Obama and Edwards.

..."A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans," the New York senator said. "They represent nurses, they represent social workers, yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people...I don't think, based on my 35 years of fighting for what I believe in, I don't think anybody seriously believes I'm going to be influenced by a lobbyist."

A less hypocritical answer to the question might have looked something like this: "Yes, I am taking lobbyists' donations and I too am concerned about the disproportionate influence wealthy interest groups have on the political process. I have often had to compromise my beliefs for lobbyist cash and that troubles me as a Senator, as a citizen, as a human being. And that's why we desperately need to switch over to a public campaign finance system. But with the system we have, in order to win, I need to take their money. If I elected, I will do my utmost to enact a public campaign finance system."

But Clinton seems to be in denial about the power of campaign cash even though, as a matter of historical record, she has flip-flopped like a trained marine mammal at Sea World for major contributors. For example, as First Lady, Hillary Clinton convinced her husband to veto a credit card company-backed bill to make it harder for Americans to declare bankruptcy. Inspired by Harvard Law professor Elizabeth Warren's speech about the devastating impact the legislation would have on single mothers and their children, Hillary informally lobbied the president on what she termed "that awful bill." Yet a few years later, Hillary, now in the Senate with the help of copious contributions from the credit card companies, voted for the same bill. "The financial services industry is a big industry in New York, and it's powerful on Capitol Hill," Warren later explained. "It's a [testament to] how much influence this industry group wields in Washington that...they can bring to heel a senator who obviously cares, who obviously gets it, but who also obviously really feels the pressure in having to stand up to an industry like that."

So please, Hillary, let's not pretend that Washington lobbyists defend the interests of social workers -- or single mothers -- and that their contributions don't affect your positions anyway. The power of entrenched wealth perverts the political process and turns politicians--even those whose hearts are in the right place, as Hillary's often is -- into paid corporate spokespeople. more

Obama is criticizing Clinton over her "lobbyist snafu" and the criticism is warranted. Americans need to have their eyes wide open about these candidates. We must select the right candidate who is supporting us, not the corporations who are the largest recipients of corporate welfare in the history of this government. Those are the real welfare "kings and queens", and not the people.

...In an interview with The Associated Press and later at a town hall-style event, Obama said the matter would be a critical issue in his campaign for the party nomination.

Obama pointed to Saturday's bloggers forum in Chicago where he touted his promise not to take money from lobbyists. Clinton argued at the event that taking money from lobbyists was acceptable because they represented real people and real interests.

Obama declined to use Clinton's name, though he told the AP, "I profoundly disagree with her statements."

"If lobbyists for well-heeled interests in Washington are setting the agenda on the farm bill, in the energy bill, on health care legislation and if we can't overcome the power of those lobbyists then we're not going to get serious reform in any of those areas," he said. "That doesn't mean they don't have a seat at the table. We just don't want them buying every chair." more, KC Star, Ari Melber, Newsday, Politico

Barack Obama has been in the hotseat for his position on Pakistan, but many are coming around and agreeing on his position, Atlanta Constitution Journal, Washington Post, to name a few. Now the pundits are talking and discussing the "same policy" as Obama. Relevant it was on ABC, for the Republican Debate in Iowa on Sunday Morning, when Giulilani was pressed and "quoted verbatim" of agreeing with Obama's stance on Pakistan, Giuliani, squirmed the question away.

So, while Obama may have gotten folks upset, as they grilled him in Iowa, the fact of the matter is that Osama bin Laden is still running amuck. He is being harbored in PAKISTAN, the United States know it, Musharraf knows it, and the man should be caught or killed, period. You can not play two sides of the fence on this. And for those afraid of Pakistan retailiating, they won't. We have harbored and aided Musharref for too long. He can "publicly" denounce the United States, but he will play politically and hand this man over. Why? He is in a hot seat, as well. While re-emphasizing, strongly, that Pakistan is not harboring or aiding al-Qaida.

The Republicans are on their last gasp of breath coming into 2008, they know it, but more importantly, we know it. For any kind of public ratification of this party, they must get Osama bin Laden, in hope of regaining public trust and retaining the White House. Clear and simple. So clear, that this should have been done in the beginning, or we would not be in Iraq. But of course, Iraq is all about lining corporate purses, period. Isn't it? Video of Obama's speech in its entirety. (requires real player)

Obama's Camp is reassuring its base that the national numbers are not important. And realistically, these nubmers are not. Not this far out. This all comes about from the Clinton Camp releasing another "inevitablity poll number memo". David Plouffe has reminded the base that it is the "early states" in which polling is important. And this statement is true. Because if you look at the individual state polling the numbers are solidifying and he is doing well. And from the Obama Camp, it does not look like the money train has "stopped".

"As the Washington insiders focus on irrelevant and wildly inconsistent national polls, there are strong signs in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina of the growing power and potential of this candidacy," Plouffe wrote.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll last week showed Clinton, Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards in a virtual tie in Iowa.

A recent poll by the American Research Group in New Hampshire put Clinton and Obama at 31 percent apiece, and a poll by the same group in South Carolina gave Obama a 4 percent lead over Clinton in that state.

"Remember, each contest affects the next," said Plouffe. "Our strategy has always been to focus like a laser on the early states to create the momentum crucial to later contests."

Plouffe also pointed to Obama's prowess at raising money from 258,000 individual donors as a sign of his strength. Obama raised about $5 million more than Clinton during the second quarter. more

'You blew it,' student tells Obama, yes a student told Obama over the controversy of meeting with leaders of hostile countries from the YouTube Debate. And you know what, Obama is not going to have everyone agree with him. That is a fact. When I was in Edwards' breakout at Yearly Kos, there was a person who did not agree with one of his points, and he stated, I don't expect you too. And I don't expect folk to agree with Obama on everything. But if you want change, YOU KNOW WHAT TO DO.

Strategist Says Blacks Are Obama's'Base'ObamaVows to Stand Up Against Corporate Mega-Farm Lobbyists

Why are the GOP candidates, ganging up on Barack Obama? What does that tell you? Obviously, he has hit a nerve with somebody, somewhere? And why aren't the GOP candidates worried about "their" nomination and trekkin' over to spit in our pool? Yes, these are the questions, one must ask and try to answer. I have been saying alot about poll numbers and to start looking at them in the fall, and I still mean it. But their poll numbers must be awful to come sniffin' around Obama. Especially, Mitt Romney. Matthews, from Hardball on Today Show, stated something that caught my attention, quick. He stated that Brownback has been coming after Romney "hard" about his "flip/flop" on the right to life and questioning his "religion". Matthews stated that Romney's anger was real in his response and that his gut feeling is that Romney's "poll numbers" must be slipping in Iowa.

Well, Matthews was RIGHT. The current polling numbers for Republicans by the University of Iowa, Obama comes in THIRD, as the candiate Republicans will caucus for. Unbelievable? NO. We know that Clinton is the candidate the Republicans want to run against, Obama is the one they do not want to run against. If Obama gets the nomination, he will win. He will siphon off enough Republicans, get the independents and the Democrats will be behind him. No wonder Romney spewed all those "cheap shots" against Obama on Sunday, he knew what the polling numbers, would be. Oh, and who won on Sunday?

Barack Obama: Obama was all over this debate and was even the basis of one of the questions. That's great news for the Illinois Senator. It shows he has become a major center of gravity in this race although he has not yet reached the villain status enjoyed (and we do mean enjoyed) by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) It also allowed him to put out a statement of his own that drew a bright line between him and the GOP candidates on the war. "The fact that the same Republican candidates who want to keep 160,000 American troops in the middle of a civil war couldn't agree that we should take out Osama bin Laden if we had him in our sights, proves why Americans want to turn the page on the last seven years of Bush-Cheney foreign policy," Obama said. more

Pure Horserace

Obama Rising? Agree with him or not, Barack Obama has become the hot candidate over the past week, gaining the attention of presidential candidates from the other party as well as his own. Obama and Hillary Clinton have sparred recently over what conditions they would or would not set for a presidential-level meeting with some of the world's most shady characters. And at yesterday's Republican debate in Iowa, the Illinois senator's insistence that, as president, he would attack terrorists in part of Pakistan — with or without that nation’s cooperation — triggered discussion. more

Will Clinton Sever Ties With Penn?No. My take on all of this with the Penn/Clinton association is that he has been effective for her, period. He is associated with a firm that prides itself with parrying union pressure. When I look back on growing up, I grew up in a union home. A home that allowed my parents to become middle class, to afford the dream home, to purchase a new car every 3-4 years, a home that produced four children who graduated from college. We need more than a tax break and lip service. We need "living wages" for workers in America, along with "living wage jobs". We need a president who is not a sell-out to corporate America. We need a leader who will stand with us and beat back the influx of China in this country. We surely do not need anymore Penn's, and I am confident many will agree with me on this one.

AFL-CIO Debate, Soldiers Field, Chicago, ILI watched the debate and came to this conclusion. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden want a "cabinet position" with the "hopeful president to be", that is Clinton. The way they went after Obama was comical, at best, with tints of desperation, to be nice. But this gave Obama a chance to speak and clarify (video here) his position on Pakistan. As Ben Smith from Politico wrote:

..."Well, look, I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize and engineer the biggest foreign policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me for making sure that we are on the right battlefield and not the wrong battlefield in the war against terrorism," Obama said to applause for the crowd. more

One shameless moment came from Senator Biden. This was during the union members Q&A, when the widow, Deborah Hamner, whose husband died at the Sago Mines, addressed Senator Biden about federal safety regulations for mine workers. Instead of him answering the question, he was still in tag team form of answering a question about Pakistan!!! He was booed soundly and loudly. The most stupid question of the night went to Senator Obama from Keith Olbermann. Will you invite Barry Bonds to the White House? Umm, can I categorically let you know that we don't give a damn. The most passionate and one that left impressions was Dennis Kucinich. Even my husband, had to sit up and take notice. Kucinich was the only one who would ban NAFTA for good. And wouldn't any union household cheer that?

During the analysis on MSNBC former Mayor Willie Brown stated something that stuck with me, and I have been writing about it on the boards. He stated that Senator Clinton need to address and put to bed, the "lobbyist" snafu. She had an opportunity to address this tonight and her answer was everthing but the "right answer". The former mayor also stated that this issue could run like a "virus". I have posted my comments on this and agree. Everyone must understand this. We follow these candidates, polls, campaign stops, etc. The average public does not. So, when hearing about this "lobbyist snafu", they only have one reminder, the Jack Abramhoff lobbyist scandal. To publicly, admit, that it is "okay" to take monies from lobbyists, puts you in the bed of "business as usual". This is something her campaign need to address and expect ads out "very soon", on this issue.

Overall, Clinton is unscathed. Obama held his own and scored some points on foreign policy. Biden and Dodd are riding out to "Desperado". Edwards was just OK for me. With the exception of calling Clinton out for being on the cover of "Fortune" or is it "Money" magazine? Richardson better, but forgettable. And the winner is Dennis Kucinich. The only candidate that will send NAFTA out to pasture, and kick WTO to the curb. AP, Washington Post, Newsday, Chris Cillizza, Full Debate TranscriptAnd the moment of the debate, was here, Steve Skvara, retired LTV Steel Worker:

...Despite becoming this presidential race's phenomenon, with the power to draw huge crowds and raise millions of dollars, Mr. Obama remains relatively unknown among the country's fastest-growing electorate: Nearly half of Latino voters have never heard of him, according to a June Gallup poll.

Even as he gains awareness among Hispanics, he may find wooing them to his campaign a challenge. Across the U.S., tensions simmer between Hispanics and blacks who regard each other as rivals for jobs, educational resources, housing and political power. In Los Angeles, Hispanics have become the majority in traditionally black enclaves and clashes have erupted between the groups in schools and on the streets.

For Mr. Obama, this has created a tricky situation. The fiery debate over immigration in Congress alienated many Hispanics, pushing conservatives among them into the Democratic camp and encouraging others to register to vote. But to tap into that, Mr. Obama must navigate past Democratic primary opponents who are better positioned to capitalize on those voters.

"If Obama were the Democratic presidential nominee, he would do well in the Hispanic community," says Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster. But "he will have to fight for their support in the primaries." more

Well, the Yearly Kos Presidential Forum has unleashed the "real". From new polling data 48% believe Senator Clinton will be "influenced" by lobbyist monies. Since this blunder, or we can say the "keepin' it real Hillary moment", this put the pause in folk to say, "hold up, lobbyist represent average americans"? Yes, folk are questioning this. See, when you are in the "beltway", you do get "disconnected" with how people feel. That is why I do give kudos to Clinton for consistantly polling to keep up with the "pulse" of people. But to come out and say that "lobbyist" gaffe is just another question to throw onto the "who is Hillary" pile. Lastly, former Mayor Willie Brown from San Francisco summed it up. That Hillary Rodham Clinton need to address the lobbyist issue, if she does not it will be come a virus. And this may just be the start.

Hillary Clinton has surged to a big lead in national polls for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination but her chief rivals say the polls are overblown and the race is far from over.

According to a realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls, the New York senator and former first lady is enjoying a gap of 18 percentage points over her closest challenger, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, 41 percent to 22 percent, while former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has 11.5 percent.

Democratic strategist Jenny Backus, who is neutral in the 2008 nomination race, said the national polls are important but that Obama and Edwards are making the race a more difficult one for Clinton than her camp had anticipated.

"I think Hillary is the front-runner but not the front-runner she thought she was going to be when this race started. She was supposed to be this colossus striding over a field of pygmies. But instead she's in a hand-to-hand battle with one very ferocious competitor and a couple others breathing on her heels," said Backus. more

"President Musharraf has a very difficult job, and it is important that we are a constructive ally with them in dealing with al-Qaida," the Illinois senator said.

Obama did not repeat the most incendiary line from his foreign policy speech last Wednesday, when he promised: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will." more

With a television crew and photographers in tow, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama spent Wednesday morning mopping floors, cleaning cobwebs and preparing breakfast for an 86-year-old wheelchair-bound amputee, as he accompanied a home health care worker on her daily duties.

A day on the job has become a new ritual of the Democratic presidential campaign this year, after the powerful 1.9 million-member Service Employees International Union demanded that candidates "Walk a Day in My Shoes" with a union member in order to be considered for endorsement.

On Wednesday, it was the Illinois senator's turn. Obama joined 61-year-old Pauline Beck, an African-American woman with gray hair and an easy manner, as she cared for John Thornton, a retired cement mason and widower who lives in a modest clapboard home in a low-income neighborhood of Oakland.

"I'm not going to lie to you. It's been a while," Obama said, after mopping the kitchen and bathrooms.

"I probably haven't mopped a floor since I started my Senate race," Obama continued, though he quickly added, "Before that, that wasn't something I was averse to doing."

Obama gamely assembled Thornton's customary breakfast of coffee, frosted flakes and watermelon cubes, washed and folded laundry and gingerly approached the task of making the bed.

The conventional thinking - especially in Washington - is that Barack Obama is flunking foreign policy. But this is one case where conventional thinking may be too closely tied to convention and not all that well thought out.

Yes, we've had a glimpse of the world according to Obama. And it doesn't look half bad.

Not the world itself, which is as dangerous and unpredictable as ever - full of petty tyrants, enemies posing as friends, and rogue states in search of nuclear weapons.

I'm talking about the worldview of the junior senator from Illinois. What seemed like a rookie mistake - i.e., suggesting that, as president, he'd meet with dictators from countries such as Cuba, Iran or North Korea - may actually wind up serving Obama well.

First, it let him draw a distinction between himself and the front-runner. Hillary Clinton helped the cause when she blasted Obama's comments as "irresponsible and frankly naive."

That's baby boomer code for "young and immature." The 46-year-old Obama stresses the fact that he's of a different generation than his opponents. This was Clinton pushing back. She might as well have sent the whippersnapper to his room without dessert. After all, Clinton lectured, the president of the United States must be careful not to be used "for propaganda purposes." more

..Over the past few weeks, Obama has been working to create a commander-in-chief moment, and it has resulted in a rough patch for his campaign. But if he wants to win the nomination, he can't give up working for this moment.

Obama made the right decision in not backing off his comments about pursuing terrorists in Pakistan. At the AFL-CIO debate earlier this week, Chris Dodd urged Obama to admit that his statement about Pakistan was a mistake -- but Obama forcefully defended himself.

Obama is correct to stand by his statement because what he originally said makes perfect sense:

"It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Since when did going after al-Qaida become a controversial platform? Bush, Cheney and Giuliani have based their entire political identities on the vague assertion that they will hunt down the terrorists and kill them, but Obama suggests we might actually want to do this and he is hit for being naïve.

The truth is that Bush and Company gave up on catching bin Laden four years ago to focus on what they thought would be an easier time in Iraq. Intent on solidifying her hawkish credentials, Hillary went along for the ride. more

As ABC says: "She said vs. She said?"Hillary Rodham Clinton need to hire a staff just for canvassing "youtube, "audio, "print", files before she opens her mouth, for criticism. In fact, I would hope "all these campaigns" are doing just that, if not, "heads up", you should. Back to Clinton, who publicly "berated" Obama stating that he would not resort to using "nukes" to rule out terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The bait and switch is that Clinton said almost the exact same thing.

“I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,” Mrs. Clinton told Bloomberg Television in an interview in April 2006, responding to a question about how the Bush administration would try to prevent Iran from building up its nuclear program.

Last week, Mr. Obama said it would be a “profound mistake” for the United States to use nuclear weapons to fight terrorism in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Asked to reply, Mrs. Clinton said: “I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”

For weeks, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have tangled over their foreign policy views, judgment and experience in their quest to win the Democratic presidential nomination. Mrs. Clinton has challenged Mr. Obama – at one point, calling his foreign policy stands “irresponsible and frankly naïve” – while he has sought to portray his positioning as an example of how he would change Washington.

But during the television interview more than a year ago, the comments of which were reported by The Associated Press, Mrs. Clinton also discussed the role of nuclear weapons.

“I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table,” Mrs. Clintons said. “This administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven’t seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that’s a terrible mistake.” more, ABC, Bloomberg

Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday he wanted to tap into the "core decency" of Americans to fight discrimination against gays and lesbians, and argued that civil unions for same-sex couples wouldn't be a "lesser thing" than marriage.

At a televised forum focusing on gay rights, the Illinois senator was asked to explain how civil unions for same-sex couples could be the equivalent of marriage. He said, "As I've proposed it, it wouldn't be a lesser thing, from my perspective.

"Semantics may be important to some. From my perspective, what I'm interested (in) is making sure that those legal rights are available to people," he said.

"If we have a situation in which civil unions are fully enforced, are widely recognized, people have civil rights under the law, then my sense is that's enormous progress," the Illinois Democrat said. more, post conference

Over onmydd bloggers for their "candidate" will be given featured author status. This event starts Monday, and on Wednesday check out psericks and Max Fletcher, blogging for Barack Obama. Don't miss it.

Obama was compared to a rock star at the LGBT forum and received a strong welcome from the crowd. He acknowledged his experience as an African American, and how it helps him relate to the LGBT community. "When you are a black guy named Barack Obama, you know what it’s like to be on the outside." He also said, "It is important not to look at the black candidate and wonder whether or not he’s going to be more sympathetic, or less sympathetic to these issues. I’m going to be more sympathetic not because I’m black, but because this has been the cause of my life and will continue to be the cause of my life making sure that everybody is treated fairly and we have an expansive view of America, where everybody is invited in and we are all working together to create the kind of America we want for the next generation.”Link

Speaking at a conference of the National Association of Black Journalists, the Illinois senator defended his recent call for military action to hunt down terrorists if Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf doesn't act. Obama also said it would be "a profound mistake" to deploy nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job of commander in chief, said presidents shouldn't make "blanket statements" with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.

"She said, I don't I think we should talk about it. Well, I think we should talk about it. I think the American people ought to have a debate about our foreign policy because it's so messed up and if we don't talk about it we're going to end up repeating the same mistakes," Obama told an audience at a conference of the National Association of Black Journalists.

"Being experienced is not enough. The question is, what lessons do you learn from your experience?" he said. "Nobody had a better track record in experience than Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, but they had bad judgment ... The people who have been criticizing me over the past two weeks are the people who engineered what is the biggest foreign policy fiasco in a generation."

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama on Saturday served as grand marshal of the annual Bud Billiken Parade, an event founded in 1929 by the Chicago Defender newspaper to celebrate area children.

Before the parade began, Obama said he was glad to be on the South Side.

"Everybody here has looked after me for years," Obama said.

Asked if participating in the parade was part of a strategy to court black voters, Obama said, "This is my crew. I don't worry about them. We're doing fine." more, ABC7 Chicago, Video

Barack Obama appears to be winning the faculty lounge straw poll -- his presidential campaign is cultivating academics and pacing the field in collecting cash from them.

Obama, whose website features an “Academics for Obama” page, raised nearly $1.5 million in the first half of the year from people who work for colleges and universities, according to an analysis of campaign finance data by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. And that’s 55 percent more than the $939,000 brought in by the next biggest professor’s pet, fellow Democratic senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. more

A Series of Fortunate EventsThis piece is slated for August 12, 2007, Washington Post. I decided to include this piece with this week's roundup because it is a facisnating read about Obama's rise in politics.

In the summer of 2002, a little-known Illinois state legislator named Barack Obama thought he saw the political opening he'd been looking for. It was a long shot, a flier -- a race for the U.S. Senate against a sitting Republican. Obama believed he could beat the incumbent, Peter Fitzgerald. The immediate and, in some ways, harder challenge would be getting the Democratic nomination.

Obama was about to turn 41. An attorney and law lecturer at the University of Chicago, he had been elected to the state Senate in 1996, but had been chafing for some time at the limitations of legislating in Springfield. In 2000, he'd overreached by challenging former Black Panther Bobby Rush for the seat Rush held in the U.S. House of Representatives. It had been a disastrous bid, but understandable given that in Illinois, as around the country, paths to higher office for black politicians are few.But this new opportunity looked, to him, feasible. In 1992, another Chicago politician, Carol Moseley Braun, had demonstrated that it was possible for an African American to win a statewide U.S. Senate primary, as long as there were at least two white Democrats to split the white vote. And several were already lining up to take on Fitzgerald.

There was just one problem, and it was a big one: Moseley Braun was talking about running herself. Only the second African American U.S. senator since Reconstruction, she had lost to Fitzgerald in 1998, in part as a result of allegations, never proved, that she had misused campaign funds. After the loss, she had been appointed U.S. ambassador to New Zealand. But now she was back in Hyde Park, the neighborhood that surrounds the University of Chicago, where Obama also lived. If she did run, there would be two credible black Democrats in the primary -- one far better known than the other. more

Leave it to Barack Obama

Leave it to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to stir up an international incident by acknowledging something everyone already knew.

Obama's bombshell: If the Obama administration knows Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan and President Pervez Musharraf doesn't act to take him out, President Obama will. Obama's rivals in the race for the White House pounced, calling his stance naive and a sign of his lack of foreign policy experience. They didn't disagree with the policy. They didn't like the way he said it.

The gloves are coming off. We're seeing a new debate emerging in the dog days of summer that's centering on how much Obama has to learn about foreign policy. The former first lady and second-term senator, who has been widening her lead over Obama in polls, certainly has the edge on experience. But Obama has a big comeback of his own: If experience got us into the foreign policy mess we face today, that kind of experience is overrated.

Yet, Clinton and other leading Democratic rivals, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, saw an opportunity to criticize Obama and they took it. So did former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on the Republican roster.

Yet, Obama's critics acknowledged that his policy is already the Bush administration's policy. Furthermore, none of the leading candidates disagreed with it.

So what was the problem? The issue quickly became a question of international etiquette. more

If you want "business as usual", and believe "lobbyists represent the average american", well you know who your candidate is. If you want change, real change, you know WHAT TO DO.

Missed YKos Presidential Forum? YKos Forums? Right Hereyearly kos presidential forum part I and part II; YKos Forums(real player required); another forum(real player?

Missed AFL-CIO Debate? Right Hereafl-cio debate part I, part II, part III, part IV; part V; part VI; part VII; part VIII; part IX

icebergslim’s final word: This week’s final word is about a “supposed to be” Democrat by the name of Harold Ford, Jr.

I don’t really know where to begin. One thing I do know for sure, we can have knockdown, drag out fights, arguments, amongst each other. Even when our candidate does not win the primary, we begrudgingly rally behind the Democrat. Now this is something I have not witnessed in a while, a "Democrat" assaulting a Democratic Progressive Website, Daily Kos.

I don’t know what Mr. Ford is trying to accomplish by “bashing us”, but let me remind him a tad bit of what this community is about. During his campaign he got a “hell of a lot of money” from the community of that site and all through the progressive community. Many did not believe he could win, but many of us, did. He may not be on the same “page” as many of us, but he is a Democrat and thus so, we supported him.

Now, since Mr. Ford did not win, he is working as a correspondent with the Fox News Channel, Vice Chairman and Senior Policy Advisor for Merrill Lynch, and is Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Conference.

He started with an op-ed piece, tag-teaming with Governor O’Malley of Maryland titled, “Our Chance to Capture the Center”, and his opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal. I am not going to comment about these articles, it speaks for itself. But, what I found rather “odd” is that this is not how most Democrats think. It is not. Nor are we trying to get back to “center”, look what that has done for us? Nothing. So, is he out of touch? Is he ranting because the presidential candidates decided to support and address, the Yearly Kos Convention, instead of the DLC, which they did a "no-show"? If so, what kind of “cheese” do you wish with your “whine”?

Moving on, Mr. Ford presumes that we think next year will be a “cakewalk”, I hardly think so. Every vote will be fought for, we totally get that. We, Democrats, have been fighting this battle for as long as I can remember, which includes for me, my mother, dragging me and my brothers and sister, through the neighborhood knocking on doors, for DEMOCRATS.

What I am getting from Mr. Ford’s article is a “throwback” to the “Clinton Years”, the “90’s”. That reads well on paper, but this is 2007, driving into 2008. People are different, times are different, and issues are different, period. And to think "that time” will fit into “this time” is wishful thinking, at best.

Mr. Ford can continue to go on Bill O’Reilly’s show, continue to write op-ed pieces, rant and rave, all he want Oh, by the way, Mr. Ford, did you read Markos' op-ed, by chance? Anyway, he has assaulted us, the many of us who commune at Daily Kos because many do not agree with him, and many of us are Democrats. And he has taken it public. On this note, for me, he is just like Joe Lieberman, 'nuff said on that one. Mr. Ford has lost any support or admiration he got from me, and if it was up to my husband this would not be "readable". So, in closing, Mr. Ford definately will not get another check for his endeavors from, icebergslim, again.

Obama @ YKos breakout, thanks casperr for the pix!!

email me for any questions, read ya next week, remember to focus on Obama, not the drama....

subscribe hereicebergslim on Daily Kos ShareNote: If you are viewing this in Firefox, on 17" monitor or smaller, the left panel may be blown. This is a firefox issue, if you view this in IE, Safari, Opera, Google Chrome, no issue. FYI.